April 14 roundup

by Walter Olson on April 14, 2011

{ 9 comments }

1 Jim Collins 04.14.11 at 11:32 am

I’m 100% in agreement with lowering the drinking age to 18. In my opinion the 21 drinking age creates a double standard. Right now there is a 13 year old boy being charged with first degree murder in my area. It used to be that we had a line between Juvinile and Adult, that line has become blurred. You have all of the responsibilities of being an adult at either 18 or younger. I want to say that you should have all of the priviledges as well, but, that conflicts with another of my opinions. The one that goes like this, “How does our Government have the right to grant us priviledges?”.

2 John Burgess 04.14.11 at 12:23 pm

The problem these laws actually seek to resolve is the combination of young drivers + booze. At present, it’s felt that driving is more important and socially/economically useful (thus less open to being limited) than teen-age drinking.

Perhaps 18-y/os could be offered a choice of a driving license OR a drinking license. Pick one. If you get caught doing both, then you get stripped of all licenses until 21 and also get the book thrown at you.

It is indisputable that, as a group, young drivers are far more dangerous than other drivers. It is also beyond dispute that being intoxicated is a factor in a large number of accidents and auto fatalities.

3 Ron Miller 04.14.11 at 12:35 pm

John, your suggestion is foolish and completely impractical.

But I really like it.

4 Sean P. 04.14.11 at 3:37 pm

This isn’t the first time Flying Dog has gotten in trouble for its labels. I wonder if Michigan also bans the porter on similar grounds?

5 Bill Poser 04.14.11 at 6:09 pm

There’s a Montana brand called “Moose Drool”. I wonder what they’d think of that.

6 Bill H 04.15.11 at 12:15 am

I look at it with a bit more simplicity, Jim- if you’re old enough to fight and die for the flag, you’re old enough to drink a beer.

7 bfs tx 04.16.11 at 12:16 pm

Seems to me that the policy issues are outweighed by the constitutional issues.

Amendment XXVI essentially makes all over 18 full citizens by bestowing on them the right to vote. This should under Amendment XIV make any limitation on their exercise of rights of a citizen subject to strict scrutiny. I think the drinking and driving rationale falls far short of this level of governmental interest, whether or not it is good policy. (part of my opposition to the proposed Equal Rights [sic] Amendment is based on my belief that Amendment XIX did the same thing for women — and men — see penumbras below).

Certainly, Amendment XXI is entitled to as many penumbras as any other amendment. Therefore, a federal act usurping the States’ right to usurpintrastate regulation of alcohol is void.

And throw in a strict Amendment X ultra vires argument for good measure.

8 William Nuesslein 04.18.11 at 6:59 am

bfs-tx’s comment above was terrific. New York used to have accidents along its Pennsylvania border when its 18 year old drinking age was less than Pennslvanis’s 21 year drinking age. The number of deaths were statistically significant but not really large in terms of risk per person. But we were trapped by the question: “What if it were your child?”. I remember my 18th birthday and going to a beer joint after working in a heat-treatment plant. That cold beer tasted soooooo goooood.

CPSIA is millions of times worse as its anti-lead provisions don’t come close to preventing any harm It is just plain NUTS!

9 Bob Lipton 04.18.11 at 7:55 am

Jim, I think insisting you have the responsibility to not commit murder before you can get drunk is not terribly unfair.

Bob

Comments on this entry are closed.